Open Minded Agnostic Atheist

[ding]

God loves predictable surprises. He created them.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Uh huh.

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

I am totally open to the idea that god is real I just don’t believe any religions are real. I like debating with theists who agree religions are man made up. I agree the universe and this planet are amazing. And it seems like it’s too perfect and there has to be some higher power. But we know so little still. Maybe there are other universes? Maybe there was is or will be life around every star eventually. Maybe not as advance as us but maybe more. And maybe the spirit lives on forever after you die. Just seems like wishful thinking to me. But I hope so. These are unknowable things.

So far I see no evidence of god and I don’t believe one exists. Everything can be explained scientifically. What can’t, may never be known. Those gaps aren’t god.

"OPEN-MINDED", "AGNOSTIC", "ATHEISTS"

Do you even know what you said?

 

[Grumblenuts]

Blaa, blaa, blaa.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I am totally open to the idea that god is real I just don’t believe any religions are real. I like debating with theists who agree religions are man made up. I agree the universe and this planet are amazing. And it seems like it’s too perfect and there has to be some higher power. But we know so little still. Maybe there are other universes? Maybe there was is or will be life around every star eventually. Maybe not as advance as us but maybe more. And maybe the spirit lives on forever after you die. Just seems like wishful thinking to me. But I hope so. These are unknowable things.

So far I see no evidence of god and I don’t believe one exists. Everything can be explained scientifically. What can’t, may never be known. Those gaps aren’t god.

"OPEN-MINDED", "AGNOSTIC", "ATHEISTS"

Do you even know what you said?

*squawk*

Atheists are bad

*squawk*

 

[Hollie]

Nothing in my comments suggested you or your Gods were inferior to Hindu Gods. I was making the point that the Hindu Gods like the Mayan Gods (like all Gods), are a reflection of the cultures/societies that formulated those Gods.

Have you ever read any book that was not a reflection of the culture of the person who wrote it? This is not news to anyone--at least not to anyone who reads.

When an American writes of an experience of God it is going to be just as much a reflection of American culture as the Hebrew Bible is a reflection of the Jewish culture, and so on and so forth.

Yes. An American, and more broadly westerners will (more often than not), default to the Gods common to Americans and westerners. But let's remember that we're not discussing any book. We're discussing a book that lays out implications for your ''eternal soul''. The stakes are a bit higher than a casual reading of Homer's Iliad for example.

The only way to evaluate the veracity of an ideology is to examine the core documents of that ideology. Applying external standards does mean that we ignore the very document(s) upon which the ideology is based. If, for example, we are to accept that the Greek Gods are a producrt of a culture that believed unflinchingly their Gods were true and extant, are those Gods still extant but have simply retired in favor of the younger, more modern Gods?

We seem to have circled back to the realization that Gods and the people who invented those Gods chose to invent Gods who modeled the inventors.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Open Minded Agnostic Atheist
⁜→ et al,

◈ So, where are we at → in this juncture of the conversation?

◈ I'm not even sure what the central issue is now? (Makes it hard to contribute a constructive comment.)

◈ Has any logic and critical thinking been brought to bear on the topic?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[BreezeWood]

There are no perfect exchanges from energy to matter or matter to energy. There are no 100% efficient conversions. Usable energy of the system is lost during each exchange. So as time approaches infinity the usable energy of the system approaches zero.

Dead wrong. All energy exchange involves simply borrowing and returning electrical potentials created through perturbation of "local" Aether. What we have so far perceived of as "the universe" is just that. There could easily be "Big Bangs" going on far beyond the limits of our scientific perception right now. By definition, "the Universe" contains everything. The "observable universe" obviously not. So, for a start,.. stop conflating the two!

There are no 100% efficient exchanges between energy to matter or matter to energy conversions. If there were perpetual motion would be possible.

Your comment about the aether has no bearing on thermodynamics whatsoever.

As for your comment about "Big Bangs" going on far beyond the limits of our scientific perception... if you are trying to discuss multi-verses, then each of those universes which are outside of our universe would have also been created from nothing and had a beginning just as ours. So that does not change anything I have said about the thermodynamic reality that energy cannot exist eternally without equilibrating. Or that the presence of energy creates space time. All of which tells us that the cause of the universe is something that is beyond energy and matter as we know it.

We know this because the SLoT precludes an infinite acting universe and it precludes energy being an eternal source for the creating the universe. So matter and energy being created from nothing without violating the FLoT is the only way the universe could have been created. Red shift, cosmic background radiation and Friedman's solutions to Einstein's field equations confirm that 14 billion years ago this universe began.

There are no 100% efficient exchanges between energy to matter or matter to energy conversions. If there were perpetual motion would be possible.

both the above are possible in a vacuum - and when not corollary compensations becomes relative for the events outcome ... which may entail a cessation, big deal.

bing's the one running around claiming first cause (that is eternal) without the slightest thought.

You bark a lot. Yes, your precious "SLoT" is largely circular reasoned bullshit.

as in building walls to stand behind - eventually a box without oxygen, is not a good thing.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Well, for starters, Roccor, like most everything, energy is poorly understood. Having potential (the Aether) is what counts. Energy is just its resultant expression:

"The Great One produces two poles, which in turn give rise to the energies of dark (yin) and the light (yang). These two energies then transform themselves, one rising upwards, and the other descending downwards; they merge again and give rise to form."
- Book 5, Chapter 2 from Ku-sih ch'un-ch'iu (Spring and Autumn Annals)​

The topic of a dipole follows the chapter on Potential & Energy because a dipole is the next logical step in understanding what we need in order to interact with the infinite potential.

A dipole is what allows the Aether to go from a state of symmetry to asymmetry. Once it is polarized and asymmetrical, it can actually move and cause work to be done.

 

[Grumblenuts]

There are no perfect exchanges from energy to matter or matter to energy. There are no 100% efficient conversions. Usable energy of the system is lost during each exchange. So as time approaches infinity the usable energy of the system approaches zero.

Dead wrong. All energy exchange involves simply borrowing and returning electrical potentials created through perturbation of "local" Aether. What we have so far perceived of as "the universe" is just that. There could easily be "Big Bangs" going on far beyond the limits of our scientific perception right now. By definition, "the Universe" contains everything. The "observable universe" obviously not. So, for a start,.. stop conflating the two!

There are no 100% efficient exchanges between energy to matter or matter to energy conversions. If there were perpetual motion would be possible.

Your comment about the aether has no bearing on thermodynamics whatsoever.

As for your comment about "Big Bangs" going on far beyond the limits of our scientific perception... if you are trying to discuss multi-verses, then each of those universes which are outside of our universe would have also been created from nothing and had a beginning just as ours. So that does not change anything I have said about the thermodynamic reality that energy cannot exist eternally without equilibrating. Or that the presence of energy creates space time. All of which tells us that the cause of the universe is something that is beyond energy and matter as we know it.

We know this because the SLoT precludes an infinite acting universe and it precludes energy being an eternal source for the creating the universe. So matter and energy being created from nothing without violating the FLoT is the only way the universe could have been created. Red shift, cosmic background radiation and Friedman's solutions to Einstein's field equations confirm that 14 billion years ago this universe began.

There are no 100% efficient exchanges between energy to matter or matter to energy conversions. If there were perpetual motion would be possible.

both the above are possible in a vacuum - and when not corollary compensations becomes relative for the events outcome ... which may entail a cessation, big deal.

bing's the one running around claiming first cause (that is eternal) without the slightest thought.

You bark a lot. Yes, your precious "SLoT" is largely circular reasoned bullshit.

as in building walls to stand behind - eventually a box without oxygen, is not a good thing.

Or.. In reality,.. there's no such thing as a closed system. Everything practical is designed to interact with its surroundings (nature)("free energy"), which tends to vary! As do one's needs!

 

[ding]

Oh brother.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Open Minded Agnostic Atheist
⁜→ Grumblenuts, et al,

BLUF: Has someone repeated the Michelson–Morley experiment (MME) and come up with a legitimate lead to follow to pursue the elusive "Aether."

Well, for starters, Roccor, like most everything, energy is poorly understood. Having potential (the Aether) is what counts. Energy is just its resultant expression:

(COMMENT)

I understand that the Lasar Interferometers Gravity-wave Observatory (LIGO) (Caltech•MIT) detected a "Gravity-Wave, but not the Aether.

Are you aware of something different?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Grumblenuts]

RE: Open Minded Agnostic Atheist
⁜→ Grumblenuts, et al,

BLUF: Has someone repeated the Michelson–Morley experiment (MME) and come up with a legitimate lead to follow to pursue the elusive "Aether."

Well, for starters, Roccor, like most everything, energy is poorly understood. Having potential (the Aether) is what counts. Energy is just its resultant expression:

(COMMENT)

I understand that the Lasar Interferometers Gravity-wave Observatory (LIGO) (Caltech•MIT) detected a "Gravity-Wave, but not the Aether.

Are you aware of something different?

Most Respectfully,
R

Yes, and one experimenter in particular (last name, Miller) did many M-M like experiments on mountains and mounted at different angles including vertically, painstakingly taking into proper account all the movements in the solar system, galaxy, cluster, etc. He sent his always positive results to Einstein to no apparent avail. But Einstein did mention that his work caused him serious doubts in private correspondence. However, I still doubt that the Aether can be detected by such means, being not as they imagined it. No Aether "wind" else the speed of light would not appear to be so constant to us. Only one or two Greeks seem to have had it nailed down. It's both mathematical and real like probability, but not substantive.

I think the Gravity-Wave notion is similarly misguided, but there may be a connection. As Newton understood gravity, it is not really a pulling force. It's due to the Aether pushing all masses together, the net effect being identical to what everyone naturally thinks is going on.

 

[Meriweather]

The only way to evaluate the veracity of an ideology

I believe the better way is to incorporate said ideology into one's life and see how it works.

 

[Hollie]

The only way to evaluate the veracity of an ideology

I believe the better way is to incorporate said ideology into one's life and see how it works.

That's one way. On the other hand, accepting the culturally appropriate religion and the Gods commanding that regional religion means you may have accepted the wrong religion and thus the wrong Gods. Maybe the Gods actually value strength of conviction wherein one concludes no Gods when the Gods have chosen to provide no indication that they exist.

 

[Meriweather]

means you may have accepted the wrong religion and thus the wrong Gods.

And this is just silly. Even the Hebrew Bible notes that God is beyond our comprehension. People of all faiths get this. I am sorry you got into a Christian denomination that told you differently, but you will find that the majority of the people of faith are comfortable where God has drawn them. Yes, we believe that Jesus is the son of God, and as such, we believe we have the most accurate depiction of God we humans are capable of understanding (God is love, God is forgiving, etc.) If an afterlife with God is dependent on who understands Him best, every human who has ever lived is going to fall way short.

 

[Grumblenuts]

God is beyond our comprehension. {...snip...}
we have the most accurate depiction of God

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

God is beyond our comprehension. {...snip...}
we have the most accurate depiction of God

Hahahaha....exactly.

These are the laughable contradictions that arise from "backward think". The magical thinkers first assume an absolute, magical truth. Then every idea that enters their orbit must be manipulated to align with that assumption. And what happens when that is ALL that matters is that all other integrity, consistency, and logic goes out the window. They only care about snapfitting the two ideas to their magical, faith based belief, not whether or not the two ideas are consistent with each other.

 

[ding]

 

[BreezeWood]

means you may have accepted the wrong religion and thus the wrong Gods.

And this is just silly. Even the Hebrew Bible notes that God is beyond our comprehension. People of all faiths get this. I am sorry you got into a Christian denomination that told you differently, but you will find that the majority of the people of faith are comfortable where God has drawn them. Yes, we believe that Jesus is the son of God, and as such, we believe we have the most accurate depiction of God we humans are capable of understanding (God is love, God is forgiving, etc.) If an afterlife with God is dependent on who understands Him best, every human who has ever lived is going to fall way short.

If an afterlife with God is dependent on who understands Him them best, every human who has ever lived is going to fall way short.

.
the Almighty is the gatekeeper for the Everlasting knowing them has nothing to do with it, your own spiritual well being is what there is to worry about - sinners need not apply. for admission.